Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by chala

Are you the nurse, the welder or the one that clean smoke stack?

As a healthcare professional, I strongly recommend that you step away from the tailpipe, and then please join the discussion.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by chala

Do not fool your self this thread utter rubbish.

When the fog clears... here's some Australian history made back in 2004 by two Nobel Prize winning scientists who saw things totally differently than 99% of the leading health professionals from over the previous thirty years, in order to find the correct cure for peptic ulcer disease. Please read the Wikipedia for the complete story regarding their groundbreaking discovery which has saved millions of people from unnecessary stomach surgery.

It's a good thing for all of us, that Marshall and Warren didn't just go along... To get along with the other 99% of the scientists. (we need a smirk thingy)

Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori

Electron micrograph of H. pylori

Gastric ulcer
This is a timeline of the events relating to the discovery that peptic ulcer disease and some cancers are caused by H. pylori. In 2005, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery that peptic ulcer disease (PUD) was primarily caused by Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium with affinity for acidic environments, such as the stomach. As a result, PUD that is associated with H. pylori is currently treated with antibiotics used to eradicate the infection. For 30 years prior to their discovery, it was widely believed that PUD was caused by excess acid in the stomach. During this time, acid control was the primary method of treatment for PUD, to only partial success; among other effects, it is now known that acid suppression alters the stomach milieu to make it less amenable to H. pylori infection.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

When the fog clears... here's some Australian history made back in 2004 by two Nobel Prize winning scientists who saw things totally differently than 99% of the leading health professionals from over the previous thirty years, in order to find the correct cure for peptic ulcer disease. Please read the Wikipedia for the complete story regarding their groundbreaking discovery which has saved millions of people from unnecessary stomach surgery.

It's a good thing for all of us, that Marshall and Warren didn't just go along... To get along with the other 99% of the scientists. :

Seafloor spreading also springs to mind.

So given these rare events in science do you think someone will appear with some solid science showing greenhouse gases don't behave the way quantum mechanics predicts just in the atmosphere of one small speck of a planet?
There's certainly enough money available for research.
Would mean throwing out most of science since Einstein though. And throwing out your mobile phone, computer, gps,...

[Reefmagnet]

It's not about how greenhouse gasses behave. The debate is how the climate system responds to such and the implications of that response.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It's not about how greenhouse gasses behave. The debate is how the climate system responds to such and the implications of that response.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I think in science the only significant debate is about climate sensitivity, not how the climate responds but how much. How it responds isn't really in doubt - the energy content of the planet increases. It heats up.

[Reefmagnet]

Not in doubt you say? I guess that's why there's so little debate on the subject.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Not in doubt you say? I guess that's why there's so little debate on the subject.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Other way round, plenty money available for anyone who can come up with solid science showing greenhouse gases don't do what they are predicted to or solid work detailing alternative mechanisms to the extremely rapid recent increase in the planets energy content. Plenty scope for debate, just nothing solid to debate. Other than how much.

[Reefmagnet]

Ok. Atmospheric C02 ppm has been increasing exponentially since, say, 1870. Average global temperature has increased, decreased, increased and flatlined in the same period. Who do I see about my cheque?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

(we need a smirk thingy)

we have


Chala, what do you think to achieve by coming to a thread were a bunch of people obviously are enjoying themself, telling everyone this is rubbish?

or in other words: if you think this is not worth your time, why waste your time?

Originally Posted by chala

Are you the nurse, the welder or the one that clean smoke stack?

I'm the Kindergarten teacher.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok. Atmospheric C02 ppm has been increasing exponentially since, say, 1870. Average global temperature has increased, decreased, increased and flatlined in the same period. Who do I see about my cheque?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Exxon would be a good start, Willie Soon got over a million.
They didn't really get anything for their money though.
Koch brothers? Though the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study backfired a bit on them as well.

Looking at it a different way and starting from the very bottom- the heat content of the planet has increased extremely rapidly in the past 150 odd years, that isn't contentious. - why?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

Exxon would be a good start, Willie Soon got over a million.
They didn't really get anything for their money though.
Koch brothers? Though the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study backfired a bit on them as well.

Looking at it a different way and starting from the very bottom- the heat content of the planet has increased extremely rapidly in the past 150 odd years, that isn't contentious. - why?

Hang on, don't change the rules. You're suggesting greenhouse gas and global temperatures directly correlate. The heat content of the planet cannot have "increased extremely rapidly" during periods of decreasing average global temperatures or even during static average global temperatures. If it directly correlated there would be a direct correlation. There isn't. For example, explain how temperatures increased so dramatically at the turn of last century when C02 emissions were minuscule by today's standard yet just about every single fossil fuelled motor on the planet at that time belched supposedly cooling particulates in far, far greater ratios than today?

Note also, I specifically used the term "respond" that - rather typically - gets construed and twisted as some form of denial. Do you think global average temperatures are responding proportionally with increasing C02 atmospheric content?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok. Atmospheric C02 ppm has been increasing exponentially since, say, 1870. Average global temperature has increased, decreased, increased and flatlined in the same period. Who do I see about my cheque?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I think you miss a critical point.

The basic physics of CO2 (and water vapour and other GHGs) is well established. Arrhenius established them in 1896 and no one has proven the concept wrong. Unfortunately his initial numbers were wrong.

Arrhenius also worked out a figure for water vapour forcing resulting from the warming casued by CO2, but that was based on the good old "all other things remaining constant".

He subsequently revised his figures and these revised numbers have been used as the basis of "climate science" ever since, but still with his assumed positive feedback of water vapour tripling the basic CO2 forcing.

The modellers picked up Arhennius' figures and used them as the basis of their models - including his feedback figure for water vapour tripling the effect of CO2. It is this assumed massive positive water vapour feedback that generated the alarmism in the first place.

These early models gave widely different results for overall climate sensitivity to CO2 and when the alarmism started, they picked up the top and bottom such figures at the time and used them for their predictions.

See The Errors of Arrhenius

The problem is that in a real world situation, all other things don't remain constant - an increase in temperature has many effects, some of the positive and some of them negative in feedback.

At the same time there are many other climate any forcings both anthropogenic and natural (if there weren't natural forcing we wouldn't see everything from glacial/interglacial periods to the several degrees difference in temperatures between the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age).

So to put your point into perspective:

Many of the other forcings and feedbacks are not clearly understood, even where they have been identified. There are likely other forcings which have not even beenidentified to date . (Some aspects of solar activity come to mind - we still don't really know how solar cycles work for instance and how various solar outputs vary over longer time frames)

It is apparent from the temperature histories and reconstructions (assuming that we can believe them) that these little understood forcings and feedbacks can overwhelm the minor warming caused by the GHG effect of CO2. Thus we see the rises, falls and "pauses" in temperature as these various forcings and feedbacks modify the minor direct effect of radiative forcing from CO2 (1.2 ° per doubling(?)) .

Sorry, no cheque,

But no runaway catastrophic warming either. Net climate feedbacks must always be negative in the long run. If they weren't we wouldn't be here.

[Reefmagnet]

Cheers, I was actually bouncing around the effects of positive and negative feedbacks hence a constant reference to average global temperatures. For the record I'm in the negative feedback camp. Come to think of it, I'm also in the "wonder if we're still within the error bars" camp as well.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hang on, don't change the rules. You're suggesting greenhouse gas and global temperatures directly correlate.

Where?

The heat content of the planet cannot have "increased extremely rapidly" during periods of decreasing average global temperatures or even during static average global temperatures.

Why not?
The atmosphere absorbs something like 2% against the oceans i90 odd %


In laymans terms - are you really saying the planet isn't getting warmer?

Scientifically that is very contentious.

And if not then why is the planet getting warmer?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Exxon would be a good start, Willie Soon got over a million.
They didn't really get anything for their money though.
Koch brothers? Though the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study backfired a bit on them as well.

Looking at it a different way and starting from the very bottom- the heat content of the planet has increased extremely rapidly in the past 150 odd years, that isn't contentious. - why?

Why did we see much more rapid and much large heat content variations in the Younger Dryas 12,000 years ago?

And to a lesser extent 8,000 years ago at the start of the Holocene Climate Optimum?

(And why is it called the "Optimum" when it was warmer than today if today's temperatures are so dreadful?)

For those interested, here's an interesting set of lecturers notes for the "Climate of the Holocene" component of the Arizona State University Atmos 336, Weather Climate and Society Course. It presents a fairly evenly balanced view of the questions.

ATMO336 - Spring 2012 (you need to read the following three pages as well as this one).